Shouldn\'t India be a permanent member of the UN Security Co

[Srinu]

I don\'t know if anyone has started a similar board b4. Just noticed this link somewhere, and wanted others to see if they would like to lend support to the cause. Anyways, if you think India should have a larger say in the UN...<br><br>http://www.sulekha.com/un/

[Srinu]

I was going though some links from the site above and I found something that I didn\'t know of... Here is a excerpt:<br><br>

[The red China got its own permanent seat only due to India\'s declining it in favour of China. <br><br>India was invited in 1955 at San Francisco, at the tenth anniversary of the UN, to join the Security Council, as a permanent member.<br><br>

On his return prime Minister Nehru informed the country\'s various chief ministers, \"Informally, suggestions have been made that China would be taken in the UN but not in the Security Council, and that India should take her (China\'s) place in the Security Council. We cannot of course accept this as it means falling out with China and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have therefore made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to the suggestion. We have gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place, and then the question of India might be discussed separately.\" (2 August 1955. Letter to the Chief Ministers).]<br><br>


And now China has categorically denied support for India saying \"further deliberations and consensus\" were required before any expansion to the security coucil. Though it\'s naive to expect China to repay its \"debt\" to India (read the article above). <br><br>
You can find the whole article at http://www.meadev.nic.in/opn/2000jun/23nh.htm.